Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
2d 765
The issues in this case relate solely to the amount of compensation awarded for
the taking, in fee, of 273.77 acres of land (hereinafter sometimes referred to as
the tract taken, or Whitehurst land or Whitehurst property) required by the
United States for the extension of runways at the Naval Air Station between
Norfolk and Virginia Beach at Oceana, Virginia. The complaint was filed on
July 11, 1951, and an order for possession was entered on the same day. A
declaration of taking was subsequently filed on December 29, 1951.
The Naval Air Station was originally constructed during the period from 1942
to 1945. Commencing in August 1950 the runways were extended to
accommodate jet airplanes. This expansion was the reason for taking the
Whitehurst property since one of the runways was constructed and extended
thereon. When this expansion work commenced the major portion of the tract
taken was being used as a highly productive truck farm along with the
adjoining 161.18 acres (not taken) in the same ownership. A "borrow pit" of
fourteen or fifteen acres from which fill material and sand had been and were
being removed was located on the farm. The bulk of the material from that pit
had been used between the years 1943 and 1945 in the original construction of
the Air Station and the area was the site of a small asphalt paving plant which
had been located there to perform work in connection with said original
construction. The plant continued to operate on a small scale thereafter and it
also performed work in connection with the expansion project. The total sales
of materials from the tract during the 1943-1945 period amounted to
$14,923.71, nearly all of said materials being used to meet the demands of the
airport project. No other sales were shown until after work had commenced to
extend the runways. Four firms which had contracts with the Navy had bought
and removed fill and sand from a 65 to 70 acre area near the center of the east
side of the Whitehurst land (nine acres of the mentioned fifteen acre borrow
pit, excluding the small asphalt plant, were embraced in the tract taken). These
materials were purchased to be used in connection with the airport work and the
total of all sales of materials from March 20, 1943, to July 11, 1951, amounted
to $167,988.63. Thus, as stated, $14,923.71 worth of materials had been sold in
the 1943-1945 period for original airport construction, and materials of the
value of $153,064.92 had been sold in the 1950-1951 period, again almost
wholly for expansion of the airport.1
The Commission found that the highest and best use of the property taken was
for a borrow pit. The District Court stated: "Support for this conclusion was
established by a prior use of the property for a brief period of time, together
with evidence of a continuing demand for borrow-pit materials in the general
area."
There was evidence before the commissioners that the highest and best use of
the major portion of the acreage taken was for farming, that other tracts in the
area had been sold as farm lands and apparently so valued even though a few of
said tracts were later shown by test borings to contain the same underlying
materials as the Whitehurst property. Although the Government complains that
the Commission refused to find that the property taken could be best used for
farming, we think the District Court was justified in upholding the
Commission's finding, on the evidence before it, as to the highest and best use.
In fact, government counsel conceded, not without reluctance however, during
oral argument before us, that there was evidence before the Commission to
support its finding of highest and best use.
6
The principal questions, then, for consideration on this appeal are whether the
Commission's award, arrived at by a computation based on estimated sales by
the cubic yard of nearly all the soil and sub-surface deposits in the tract taken to
an average depth of twenty-seven feet over a period of thirty-five years, should
have been rejected by the District Court, and whether the report of the
Commission is much too inadequate for intelligent review because of a lack of
finding on essential issues.
Mr. Hall, one of the principal witnesses for the Government, appraised the
property taken at $156,400. Most of the value was attributed to the major
portion of the property on the basis of its existing use as a highly productive
truck farm. However, because of industrial potential in the area, he placed
additional value on forty-five acres abutting the Norfolk and Southern Railway
line which bounded the tract on the north. This included a strip of land 3,000
feet long and 400 feet wide (thirty acres) plus the fifteen-acre borrow pit (nine
acres taken) where the asphalt paving plant was located alongside the railroad.
He supported his valuation of the farm acreage by citing ten sales of farm land
in the immediate vicinity, within five years prior to the taking, which ranged
from $43 to $460 per acre. He assigned no value to the use of the tract for a
borrow pit (such use being inconsistent with farming or industrial use) and
placed a low value ($50 per acre (on the 65 acres which had been so used as
compared with his values for the remainder (cleared land $350 per acre, swamp
and woods $150 per acre, and industrial $1,000 per acre). He had appraised
land which had been sold and which later became borrow pits but he had never
appraised a borrow pit, as such, by the cubic yard. He did not, so he stated,
concern himself with the material he saw "being carted right across the road to
the Navy Air Base."
There was testimony to the effect that, in the immediate vicinity at the time of
taking, there were only two borrow pits operating, the one on the Whitehurst
land and one on a twenty-acre tract approximately four miles distant, operated
by Mr. Baillio "in the Alanton section." One Brown testified that he sold this
twenty acres (at about $400 per acre) to Mr. Leeke under the belief that the
buyer was going to build a substantial residence on it. However, on the same
day, June 15, 1950, Leeke resold it to Baillio who then opened it as a borrow
pit. Mr. Brown strongly intimated that he was a victim of misrepresentation and
stated that if he had known the twenty acres were about to be resold for a
borrow pit he would not have made the sale. He then qualified his statement by
saying, "Well, I wouldn't have sold it as fast, and I wouldn't have sold it for the
money that I sold it for either." The Commission noted particularly that this
sale of the twenty acres was one in which the original seller was not aware of
all the facts involved.
9
10
Mr. Wilson, a civil engineer, examined the contents of ninety-five borings and,
after eliminating swamp and a supporting two-to-one slope that would be
needed around the perimeter of the tract to prevent cave-in, estimated that
excavation of the tract to an average depth of twenty-seven feet would yield a
total of 12,500,000 cubic yards of usable materials top soil, sandy clay fill
and sand.
11
Messrs. George and Capper, soil testing engineers, described their findings
from borings as to quality and depths of the materials. Mr. Capper testified that
he would presume that there are other adjacent properties containing a similar
type of material and "I don't think that it is confined to his [Whitehurst's]
boundaries."
12
Mr. Hodges, a general contractor, testified that he had searched the area, prior
to this taking, for material to fulfill his contracts with the Navy for the Air
Station expansion, that he had bought from Whitehurst and if he had not done
so he would have had to pay 35 per cubic yard at the Baillio pit four miles
distant plus 6 a mile per cubic yard hauling expense. He paid less than 35 per
cubic yard to Mr. Whitehurst and stated that location of the material close to the
airport and short hauling were matters of prime concern to him in the cost of
materials.
13
13
14
Mr. Williams, a contractor and half-uncle of the owner, testified that the
Whitehurst property was a source of fill and subbase material (about eight feet
in depth) which met federal and highway specifications and that the location on
a concrete road (unlike other pits) made hauling easier. He said he had hauled
material out of the tract from 1943 to 1951 "on various projects," "not
continuously" but "on occasions." Specifically, however, he named only one
occasion in 1943 when he removed 50,000 cubic yards at fifteen or twenty
cents a yard for use on the Air Station, and another in 1950 or 1951, when
materials were used on the Air Station expansion project. He could not give any
estimate as to the total quantity of material he had removed or the total price
paid for it. Nevertheless, he "estimated" that the local annual market in 1951
(excluding government use) was 100,000 cubic yards for highway work,
130,000 cubic yards for other miscellaneous uses and that from sixty to seventy
per cent of those needs would have been supplied from the Whitehurst land. He
had "no figures or facts" to support any of these estimates. When asked whether
(disregarding government use) he knew "of any time that he [Whitehurst] ever
sold in any one year 60 to 70 per cent of 130,000 yards" he replied: "He might
have sold to someone else. I don't know." He further testified that the prevailing
price of fill in 1951 was twenty cents per cubic yard in the ground. As to
sources of the material in the vicinity, he said that in 1951 "we went to Bob
Baillio [a pit owner] to try to buy land from him. * * * We have been to
different farmers trying. * * * We have been to a lot of people around there. We
contacted, diligently as we could, anybody with a closed pit to buy land from if
it was for sale. * * * Mr. Whitehurst and Mr. Baillio had the only pits
[operating] down there. I have been to other people, asked to buy the land * * *.
I was buying it by the yard, if possible. If not, we bought it by the acre."
15
Mr. Bratten, a paving contractor, stated that the prevailing price in 1951 for fill
material that would meet highway specifications was twenty cents per cubic
yard for large quantities and up to thirty cents for small quantities. He estimated
that the local annual market for road work in 1951 was 100,000 cubic yards,
including the Air Station, and 50,000 excluding it; he thought most of it at that
time was coming out of the Whitehurst tract. He said his firm built most of the
Norfolk-Virginia Beach Boulevard between 1945 and 1953 and that, prior to
July 11, 1951, it had indirectly bought fill from this tract through a
subcontractor, Mr. Williams. He did not know the quantity; the boulevard used
15,000 cubic yards of select material per mile; all of it did not come from this
property because "there was material in closer proximity to the job than Mr.
Whitehurst, which was on the east end."
16
Mr. Sadler, officer of a ready-mix concrete company, testified that in 1951 five
companies in the Norfolk-Virginia Beach area used about 528,276 tons of sand
for concrete, masonry and plaster. (One ton equals two-thirds of a cubic yard.)
The major portion of this came from the vicinity of Richmond, Virginia. The
rest came from a sand company in Princess Anne County near the Norfolk
Airport and 12,500 tons from the Baillio pit. None of it came from the
Whitehurst property. He did not know how many of those tons were used on
the Air Station. In 1951 shipping sand from the Richmond area to Norfolk cost
$1.00 per ton by water and $1.13 by rail, and at the same time the hauling cost
from the Whitehurst tract to Norfolk would have been 70 to 75 per ton. On
that basis he said: "Of course, it is conjecture but the difference in economics of
it, with the proper sales staff, you could sell all of it." He stated that in 1951
processed (washed) plaster sand was selling for 65 a ton at the pit and that the
Whitehurst sand was worth 7 per ton (10 per cubic yard) in the ground.
17
Mr. Mills, officer of a Norfolk company which sold sand for traction, fertilizerfiller and plaster, stated that it sold 1,000,000 tons of unprocessed dune sand in
1951 (purchased from the Government at Fort Story on Cape Henry for 10 per
ton); that the sand from the Whitehurst land was better when processed but they
had not bought from this tract in 1951. The dune sand was sold in large
quantities to railroads to be used for wheel-traction purposes.
18
19
case and pit owner, Mr. Baillio. He valued the property as a borrow pit.
Relying "on other people's judgment" he found no comparable sales.
20
Mr. Grice valued the Whitehurst land by the following method: He took a total
of 12,505,000 cubic yards of salable material, 285,000 top soil, 2,280,000
sandclay fill and 9,940,000 sand. He estimated the quantity of sand that would
be sold in a year and divided that into the total quantity of sand available which
gave him a 35-year period. Then he assigned thirty-five years to the other two
materials, top soil and fill, "to reflect the same period of time."2 He placed a
price of 40 per cubic yard on the top soil, 20 on the fill and 10 on the sand
to reach an annual sales return of $43,260 from which he deducted $3,000 as
expense for bookkeeping and the payment of taxes, leaving a net of $40,260.
Then by the capitalization of income method, using the "Inwood Present Worth
Table" on a $40,260 annual income for thirty-five years at the capitalization
(risk) rate of ten per cent, he computed a value at the time of taking in round
figures of $385,000.
21
Then, to obtain a value before and after taking for the entire acreage (437 acres)
from which this tract was taken, Mr. Grice divided the 277 acres of the taken
tract into the $385,000 for a value of $1,400 per acre. He assigned that same
value to forty acres not taken and $75 an acre to the remaining 120 acres which
were not taken. This gave him a "before taking" value of $450,000. He then
subtracted the values placed on the acreages not taken for an "after taking"
value of $65,000, arriving again at a damage of $385,000.3 He stated that he
knew of no sales of comparable properties, that is, with comparable soil
conditions. He did not consider comparable the sale and resale of twenty acres
at $400 per acre (hereinbefore mentioned) which became Mr. Baillio's Alanton
pit because Mr. Brown, the owner, did not know he was selling it for use as a
borrow pit and because someone told him that the material was not as good as
that on the Whitehurst property.
22
To show that the soil and materials on the Whitehurst land were not unique and
could be found in many other places in the county, a soil testing engineer, Mr.
Hill, called by the Government, testified that borings at several places to the
north and south of the Whitehurst property and thirty-five pits in the area in
1961 showed that there was plenty of comparable material available in the area.
Commission's Award
23
After stating that Mr. Hall was the only witness to testify that the highest and
best use of the property, at the time of taking, was for farming, and that none of
the witnesses thought any of the sales recited by him were of comparable
properties, and rejecting the sale of land for the Baillio borrow pit as
comparable because it "was a sale in which the original seller was not aware of
all the facts involved," the Commission concluded that the highest and best use
of the Whitehurst property, at the time of taking, was for a borrow pit. It
reached the further stated conclusion that it was proper "to arrive at the present
day worth of the probable net income from the property, over the foreseeable
future." It supported its conclusions by "the fact that there is growing public
opposition to the use of land for borrow pits," as evidenced by zoning
ordinances against them without a special permit and the fact that use of the
tract taken as a borrow pit was well established as a nonconforming use which
could be continued to its conclusion. It was noted that government witness Hall
placed "a value of $1,000.00 per acre on that part of the property, about 15
acres in area, located in the northeast corner of the tract, which was being used
as a borrow pit * * *. This was the same rate placed on the railroad property".
Then the Commission specifically adopted the method and figures of Mr.
Whitehurst's witness, Mr. Grice, in every particular save one; it selected and
applied a capitalization (risk) rate of fifteen per cent instead of ten per cent,
thus changing the computed value from $385,000 to $226,400, and awarded the
latter sum as just compensation.
Discussion
24
25
We find this record replete with testimony relying on the sales of materials to
the Government, and the Commission made no finding that it excluded or
ignored such sales. In relying on Grice, who relied on the opinions of others,
who in turn relied to some considerable extent on the government sales, the
Commission based its conclusion, at least in part, on the sales to the
Government. Moreover, the Commission, by mathematical formula, has valued
cubic yards of different materials in the earth on the basis of a demand therefor
at the rate of 357,280 cubic yards per year which (eliminating the government's
use and purchases of the materials from the taken lands) is unrealistic,
speculative and lacking the necessary objective factual support.
26
The capitalization or interest rate selected and applied in the formula used here
reflects the degree of risk in the undertaking involved. It is an extremely
important figure in the computation because a change of even a fraction of one
per cent will produce a surprisingly material change in the result. In United
States v. 158.76 Acres of Land, etc., 298 F.2d 559 (2 Cir. 1962), involving
deposits of gravel, the court rejected a valuation based on the capitalization of
income theory like the one used here and stated at page 561:
27
28
In the cited Leavell & Ponder, Inc., case, 286 F.2d 398 (5 Cir. 1961), Chief
Judge Tuttle wrote at page 407:
29
"* * * For one to give an opinion on value he is ordinarily required to base such
opinion on knowledge of sales at arm's length and without compulsion of
comparable properties or on knowledge of the rate of return which the ordinary
prudent investor requires in order to invest in a comparable project when he has
complete freedom of choice."
******
30
31
32
33
Here, Mr. Grice, who had never appraised a borrow pit before, selected a
capitalization (risk) rate of ten per cent and stated: "That is based on my
judgment and experience." Below are excerpts from the record of his
testimony.8
The Commission stated in its report:
34
35
"Mr. Grice admitted that in the words of Mr. Schmutz, one of the leading
authorities on condemnation appraisals, `This method is highly susceptible to
overvaluation, because of the tendency to overestimate the number of tons of
annual sales and the tendency to employ a capitalization rate that is too low to
reflect the hazards of the industry.'"
36
Despite its observations the Commission proceeded to follow Mr. Grice in all
particulars except in his choice of the capitalization or risk rate. The change by
the Commission of the rate from ten per cent to fifteen per cent has no support
whatever in the record, in comparable investments or otherwise. The only
expression of opinion as to this rate was that of Mr. Grice and his testimony
flatly contradicts the Commission. When asked concerning the result which
would be obtained by using a fifteen per cent risk rate, Mr. Grice said:
"Whoever would choose a rate like that, I feel, it is using interest rates rather
unintelligently and, I think, unrealistically, too."
37
We think this record will not support a finding of a "normal demand" from the
tract taken of 357,280 cubic yards of top soil, fill and sand per year,
commencing July 12, 1951. Eliminating sales for use at the Air Station, the
amount of materials sold from this property between 1943 and July 11, 1951,
was either very nominal for such a period or evidence thereof was not
furnished. A careful analysis of the testimony, even when considered in the
light most favorable to the landowner, reveals its insufficiency. Mr. Hodges
testified to purchases of material for use on the Air Station. Mr. Llewellyn,
although seeking material for a railroad, did not testify to any purchases from
this tract. Mr. Williams, although asserting that he had hauled material from
this tract from 1943 to 1951 for various projects, testified specifically only as to
purchases for use on the Air Station. He admitted that his estimate of future
sales of materials was not based on facts or figures and his testimony shows that
there is like material on other farm lands in the area. Mr. Bratten testified that
his firm had used fill from the tract for road work but he neither knew nor
estimated the amount. He estimated a 50,000 cubic yard per year market in the
area, excluding the Air Station, and stated that the proximity of the material
source to a job would determine sales. Mr. Sadler testified to purchases of sand
from places other than the Whitehurst property and he did not know how much
of that was used on the Air Station. Mr. Mills also testified to purchases
elsewhere. Mr. Ritter could not recall that he had ever bought material from the
tract for highway construction. He tried to buy some of the Whitehurst tract
near July 11, 1951, to use for fill on the Air Station. Mr. Grice admitted that
sales from this tract during the years 1943-1945 totaled $14,923.71 and that all
other sales to the date of taking were to contractors working on the Air Station.
38
39
40
41
"In each instance he [Mr. Hall] gave dates, the names of the parties involved,
the locations of the properties, the character of the farm and soil, the nature of
the improvements, their proximity to the subject property and the consideration
for each sale, which ranged from $43.00 to $460.00 per acre.
42
"The Commission does not feel that it would serve any purpose to give the
details of each of these transactions."
43
At least one other witness, Mr. Atkinson, acknowledged that the No. 3 sale
listed by Mr. Hall "is pretty near comparable, in my opinion, yes." That
property was a mile south of the property taken, fronted on Route 637 with easy
access to Route 615 and was on Pungo Ridge. All of the ten properties cited by
Mr. Hall were used for farms, as was the major portion of the Whitehurst land,
excluding Navy use. There was evidence that the findings from test borings,
made by the government's consulting engineers, as testified to by Mr. Hill (not
to be confused with Mr. Hall) showed comparable materials in the area of at
least five of Mr. Hall's recited sales. In addition, Mr. Hill found comparable
materials in the area of the land sold to Baillio.
44
45
It appears that the Commission and the landowner's witnesses rejected the
Brown-Leeke-Baillio twenty-acre sale at $400 per acre because Brown did not
know it would be used as a borrow pit. Under the circumstances this was error.
All the indicia of an arm's length transaction were present. Mr. Brown
evidently received his asking price and there is no evidence that there was a
market which would have paid him more. The obvious reason for his statement
that he would have demanded more money if he had known that this part of his
property was going to be used as a borrow pit was because he did not want a pit
next to his residence, just as he had stated that he did not want a cheap housing
project there. His reason was personal to him and was not based on any
increased value in the land for sale as a borrow pit. The property was not sold
with a restrictive covenant as to use and Mr. Brown must have known that,
when he parted with title, he parted with control of the use of the property. As
the Government asserts: "There is no indication that Mr. Brown or the parties
to the other transactions relied upon by the Government's witnesses were all
economic idiots and did not know the value of the materials in the lands. The
fact that the sales prices do not reflect enhancement because of existence of the
materials to an extent even approaching that claimed by Mr. Whitehurst
It is settled law that comparable sales are the best evidence of value. E. g.,
United States v. Miller, 317 U.S. 369, 374-375, 63 S.Ct. 276 (1943); Olson v.
United States, 292 U.S. 246, 257, 54 S.Ct. 704 (1934); United States v. 5139.5
Acres of Land, in Aiken and Barnwell Counties, 200 F.2d 659, 662 (4 Cir.
1952); United States v. Lowrie, 246 F.2d 472, 474 (4 Cir. 1957); Baetjer v.
United States, 143 F.2d 391, 397 (1 Cir. 1944), cert. den., 323 U.S. 772, 65
S.Ct. 131, 89 L.Ed. 618. Real property may be unique and the comparable sales
too few to establish a conclusive market price, "[b]ut that does not put out of
hand the bearing which the scattered sales may have on what an ordinary
purchaser would have paid for the claimant's property." United States v.
Toronto, Hamilton & Buffalo Nav. Co., 338 U.S. 396, 402, 70 S.Ct. 217, 221
(1949).
47
In United States v. Certain Interests in Property, etc., 296 F.2d 264 (4 Cir.
1961), this court upheld the District Court's rejection of the award of a
Commission which was based solely upon the opinion of one expert witness,
which opinion was found to be without record support and based upon the
application of an incorrect test for determining fair market value. That case
involved the taking of the owner's equity in a Wherry Housing Act
development and the evidence disclosed that the condemned property had an
annual stabilized income. The capitalization of income method was there
applied and approved in determining market value, the principal issues being
the period of remaining economic life of the property and the selection of the
proper capitalization (risk) rate. There we used language which may be
appropriately repeated here:
48
49
We do not hold that the use of the capitalization of income method to determine
the value of a borrow pit should be rejected as inappropriate in every case. On
the contrary, if all of the factors which must necessarily be taken into account
are established by proper evidence, there would appear to be no valid reason to
judicially condemn, prohibit or outlaw the use of this method. We do hold,
however, in the instant case that the determination of the several elements or
factors which were here relied upon was based upon pure speculation and was
without objective evidential support.
50
In United States v. Carroll, 304 F.2d 300 (4 Cir. 1962), the highest and best use
for the property taken was found to be as a horse farm with future investment
potential. The evidence disclosed that the 268 acres taken were in good
condition and included were 150 acres of marketable sod. Although the
Commission mentioned the sod it did not expressly indicate in its report
whether it had considered the existence of the marketable sod as a factor
entering into the determination of the value of the whole tract when put to its
highest and best use. This court held that the Commission should reconsider,
clarify and correct its report. We there stated (page 306) that the most profitable
use to which the land could reasonably be put in the reasonably near future
could be shown and considered as bearing upon the market value and, in
arriving at market value, there should be taken into account all considerations
that might fairly be brought forward and given substantial weight in bargaining
between an owner willing to sell and a purchaser desiring to buy.
51
52
Notes:
1
The result was a computation of annual sales of 357,280 cubic yards of all
materials
Valuations for the owner were stated by three other witnesses, but since the
Commission expressly adopted Mr. Grice's method and all of his figures
(except the risk rate), the other valuations are relatively unimportant. Mr.
Atkinson, a real estate broker, estimated the material could be sold for
$1,448,000 and thought the market value in 1951 would have been one-third of
that amount, or $428,000. Mr. Ritter valued the tract at $2,750 per acre. Mr.
Whitehurst, the owner, asserted a value of $5,000 per acre for 257.65 acres
which were not swamp land
Parkbelt Homes, Inc. v. United States, 171 F.2d 230 (4 Cir. 1948); United
States v. Toronto, Hamilton & Buffalo Nav. Co., 338 U.S. 396, 401-402, 70
S.Ct. 217, 94 L.Ed. 195 (1949); Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. So. Pac.
Co., 268 U.S. 146, 156, 45 S.Ct. 465, 69 L. Ed. 890 (1925); United States v.
Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 168 F.2d 391, 398 (2 Cir. 1948)
United States v. 158.76 Acres etc., in Town of Townshend, etc., Vermont, 298
F.2d 559, 92 A.L.R.2d 766 (2 Cir. 1962); Georgia Kaolin Co. v. United States,
214 F.2d 284 (5 Cir. 1954), cert. den., 348 U.S. 914, 75 S.Ct. 294, 99 L.Ed.
716; United States v. Glanat Realty Corp., 276 F.2d 264 (2 Cir. 1960); United
States v. Land in Dry Bed of Rosamond Lake, Cal., 143 F.Supp. 314 (S.D.Cal.
1956)
Olson v. United States, 292 U.S. 246, 54 S.Ct. 704, 78 L.Ed. 1236 (1934);
Cameron Development Co. v. United States, 145 F.2d 209 (5 Cir. 1944)
United States v. Miller, 317 U.S. 369, 63 S.Ct. 276, 87 L.Ed. 336 (1943);
United States v. Cors, 337 U.S. 325, 69 S.Ct. 1086, 93 L.Ed. 1392 (1949); John
L. Roper Lumber Co. v. United States, 150 F.2d 329, 330-331 (4 Cir. 1945);
United States v. 158.76 Acres etc., in Town of Townshend etc., Vermont, 298
F.2d 559 (2 Cir. 1962); United States v. Rayno, 136 F.2d 376 (1 Cir. 1943),
cert. den., 320 U.S. 776, 64 S.Ct. 90, 88 L.Ed. 466
8
"Q. I want to know a comparable gravel pit operation that has reflected this 10
per cent to you. Do you know of any?
"A. No, sir, I do not.
*****
"Q. But you had no comparable investment to establish the 10 per cent?
"A. I think you are stretching the point, sir. I feel
"Q. Name the investment.
"A. A comparable one; no, sir. But it is my opinion that with the risk involved
for the period of time you got to invest your money that 10 per cent is not
unreasonable. Land downtown, vacant land, will rent for 5 per cent to 6 per
cent.
"Q. Is that a gravel pit?
"A. No.
"Q. Borrow pit?
"A. No, sir, I am talking about land.
*****
"Q. My question was directed to you on 10 per cent on a borrow pit, if you had
any other investment?
[Interruption]
"THE WITNESS: It has been said twice, sir, that I think it is true that there is